DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed August 26, 2025, are acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended and Claim 7 is cancelled. No new matter has been added.
Claims 3-4 and 17-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, drawn to a dust core and a magnetic component, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely elected without traverse in the reply filed March 4, 2025.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending and Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 8-16 are currently considered in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada (cited by Applicant in IDS filed July 23, 2024, US 5800636 A) in view of Hirose (US 20080253917 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsukada discloses a soft magnetic particle comprising a core particle and an insulation layer formed on the surface of the core particle (Abstract; Col. 9, 60-Col. 10, line 5; Col. 3, lines 26-28), wherein
the insulation layer includes Ti and an oxide of Si (Col. 9, 60-Col. 10, line 5; Col. 3, lines 26-28; organic Ti and silica sol wherein Si is in the form of SiO2), and
an amount of 15-210ppm Ti and 0.03-0.1wt% Si in the insulation layer (Col. 2, lines 44-45). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the disclosed amounts of Si and Ti (0.03-0.1wt% Si and 15-210ppm Ti) are the amounts present in the binder/insulating layer because the core is an Fe particle, and the Si and Ti components are only added in the binder/insulating layer (see Col. 3, lines 26-28 and Col. 9, 60-Col. 10).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that 0.03-0.1wt% Si and 15-210ppm Ti equate to an amount of 0.09-29mol% Ti with respect to a total amount of Si and Ti in the insulation layer, which is substantially similar to and reads on the claimed range of 1.0-30 mol% Ti with respect to a total amount of Si and Ti in the insulation layer.
Additionally, Tsukada discloses working examples which comprise 11.6 mol%, 4.9 mol% and 9.6 mol% Ti with respect to a total amount of Si and Ti in the insulation layer (see Table 1, sample numbers 1-3, which comprise 94ppm, 45ppm and 96ppm (0.0094wt%, 0.0045wt% and 0.0096wt%) Ti and Si contents of 0.042wt%, 0.051wt% and 0.053wt%, respectively, which equates to 11.6 mol%, 4.9mol% and 9.6mol% Ti with respect to a total amount of Si and Ti, as calculated based on molar masses of Si and Ti). An amount of 11.6 mol%, 4.9 mol% and 9.6 mol% Ti with respect to a total amount of Si and Ti in the insulation layer reads on the claimed range of 1.0-30 mol%.
Tsukada fails to disclose a layer other than the insulation layer which exists between the insulation layer and the surface of the core particle, and wherein the layer other than the insulation layer comprises a phosphoric acid compound.
Hirose teaches forming multiple layers on a soft magnetic particle, wherein a first layer on the soft magnetic particle surface formed through a reaction with phosphoric acid, and therefore is a phosphoric acid compound such as phosphates, and wherein an additional, second layer may be one comprising oxides of Ti and Si, and wherein the layers comprise an average thickness of 5-100nm (para. [0047]-[0050]; see para. [0048] wherein insulating films comprise a plurality of layers). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the layer formed through phosphoric acid treatment to be the first layer on the soft magnetic particle (and therefore between the soft magnetic particle and any subsequent layers) in order to react with the phosphoric acid.
Hirose teaches wherein the insulating films serve as an insulating layer and improve the electrical resistance, preventing an eddy current from passing through the iron particles, thereby reducing iron loss (para. [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a phosphoric acid compound layer on the soft magnetic particle surface comprising a thickness of 5-100nm, and therefore between the insulation layer (Ti and Si oxide layer) of Tsukada and the surface of the core particle, as claimed, as taught b Hirose, for the invention disclosed by Tsukada. One would be motivated to form these layers in order to improve the electrical resistance by preventing an eddy current from passing through the iron particles, and thereby also in order to reduce iron loss (see teaching by Hirose above).
Regarding Claim 2, Tsukada discloses wherein the core particle includes Fe (Abstract; Col. 11, line 59-60; Col. 9, lines 60-61).
Regarding Claim 8, Hirose discloses wherein the layer other than the insulation layer has a thickness of 5-100nm, which reads on the claimed range of 20nm or less (para. [0049]; see teaching above in Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Tsukada discloses wherein the amount ratio of Ti is within a range of 3.0-15mol% with respect to the total amount of Si and Ti in the insulation layer (Table 1, sample numbers 1-3, which comprise 94ppm, 45ppm and 96ppm (0.0094wt%, 0.0045wt% and 0.0096wt%) Ti and Si contents of 0.042wt%, 0.051wt% and 0.053wt%, respectively, which equates to 11.6 mol%, 4.9mol% and 9.6mol% Ti with respect to a total amount of Si and Ti, as calculated based on molar masses of Si and Ti).
Regarding Claim 10, Tsukada discloses wherein the amount ratio of Ti is within a range of 4.0-10mol% with respect to the total amount of Si and Ti in the insulation layer Table 1, sample numbers 2-3, which comprise 45ppm and 96ppm (0.0045wt% and 0.0096wt%) Ti and Si contents of 0.051wt% and 0.053wt%, respectively, which equates to 4.9mol% and 9.6mol% Ti with respect to a total amount of Si and Ti, as calculated based on molar masses of Si and Ti).
Regarding Claim 12, Tsukada discloses wherein the thickness of the insulation layer has a thickness of 50-160m, which reads on the claimed range of 5-500nm (Col. 9, lines 60-62; see also para. [0049] of Hirose, wherein insulation layers comprise a thickness of 5-100nm).
Regarding Claim 13, Tsukada discloses wherein the thickness of the insulation layer has a thickness of 50-160m, which reads on the claimed range of 10-200nm (Col. 9, lines 60-62; see also para. [0049] of Hirose, wherein insulation layers comprise a thickness of 5-100nm).
Regarding Claim 14, Tsukada discloses wherein the oxide of Si is SiO2 (Col. 10, lines 2-4; Abstract, silica reads on SiO2).
Regarding Claim 15, Tsukada discloses wherein the Ti in the insulation layer is in the form of a substance of Ti or a compound including Ti (Abstract; Col. 5, lines 10-13; titanium alkoxides and titanium chelates read on a substance of Ti or a compound including Ti).
Regarding Claim 16, Tsukada discloses wherein the Ti in the insulation layer is in the form of a compound including Ti which is further an organometallic compound including Ti (Abstract; Col. 5, lines 10-13; titanium alkoxides and titanium chelates read on organometallic compound including Ti).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed July 23, 2024, US 5800636 A) in view of Hirose (US 20080253917 A1), as applied to Claim 2 above, in further view of Kondo (previously cited, US 20040061582 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Tsukada discloses wherein the core is an iron particle, but fails to disclose wherein the core particle further includes Si, Ni or Co.
Kondo teaches a pure iron core for a soft magnetic particle covered by an insulating film, wherein the iron particle may also be an alloy of Fe, including other elements such as Si, Ni and Co in order to comprise high magnetic flux density and low coercive force (para. [0040]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a Fe-based core particle further comprising Si, Ni and/or Co, as taught by Kondo, for the invention disclosed by Tsukada, in order to achieve high magnetic flux density and low coercive force (see teachings above).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed July 23, 2024, US 5800636 A) in view of Hirose (US 20080253917 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Yamamoto (previously cited, JP 2015026661 A, English Translation provided).
Regarding Claim 6, Tsukada discloses wherein the insulation/binding layer covers the particle, but does not expressly disclose the coverage percentage.
Yamamoto teaches wherein the insulation layer covers 100% of the particle in order to improve core loss characteristics (para. [0014]; para. [0025]; para. [0036]; para. [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised 100% coverage of the insulation layer of Tsukada, as taught by Yamamoto, in order to improve core loss characteristics (see teaching above).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed July 23, 2024, US 5800636 A) in view of Hirose (US 20080253917 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Ishida (previously cited, US 20170162307 A1)..
Regarding Claim 11, Tsukada fails to disclose wherein the insulation layer further includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ba, Ca, Mg, Al, Zr, Ni, Mn and Zn, wherein a total amount of ratio of the at least one element is 1 mol% or less with respect to an amount of Ti.
Ishida discloses wherein an insulating film comprises an inorganic oxide, wherein the inorganic oxide is at least one of Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Ti, Zr, and Ba, and is preferably SiO2, TiO2, Al2O3 and ZrO2 in consideration of strength and inherent specific resistance (para. [0066]-[0067]; para. [0073]; para. [0078]). Ishida teaches wherein the metal alkoxides, which form the inorganic oxide, may be used in combination (para. [0080]; para. [0066], wherein alkoxides form the inorganic oxide). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Ishida teaches using a combination of the inorganic oxide for the insulation film.
Ishida further teaches wherein the inorganic oxide exists in the insulation layer from 0.01-5wt% with respect to the soft magnetic particle (para. [0067]).
Tsukada discloses up to 0.03-0.1wt% Si in the binder/insulation layer, which exists exclusively as SiO2 (Abstract; see Col. 10, lines 1-4), and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate wherein the binder/insulation layer comprises about 0.064-0.21% SiO2 (as calculated from the amount of Si present).
Tsukada also discloses up to 210ppm (Abstract; Col. 2, lines 44-45; Col. 11, lines 47-49; 210ppm is 0.021wt% Ti), and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that up to 1mol% of Zr or up to 1mol% of Al, with respect to the amount of Ti disclosed by Tsukada (up to 210ppm, or 0.021%), would equate to the inclusion of approximately 0.00074wt% ZrO2 or 0.00084% of Al2O3 (calculated based on molar masses of Zr, ZrO2, Al, Al2O3 and Ti).
An amount of SiO2 (0.064-0.21% SiO2 by Tsukada), and the inclusion of up to 0.00074wt% ZrO2 or alternatively of up to 0.00084wt% Al2O3 (from Ishida), is within the range of total inorganic oxide taught by Ishida (0.01-5wt% - see para. [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included up to 0.00074wt% ZrO2 or up to 0.00084wt% Al2O3 in combination with the SiO2 of Tsukada, as taught by Ishida, in order to tailor the inherent specific resistance and the strength of the binder/insulation layer (see teachings by Ishida above), and because these amounts are within the range of total inorganic oxides in the insulation layer allowed by and taught by Ishida.
For an amount of 210ppm (0.021wt% Ti), up to 0.00074wt% ZrO2 or up to 0.00084% of Al2O3 would equate to the inclusion of up to 1mol% of Zr or up to 1mol% of Al with respect to the amount of Ti disclosed by Tsukada, and therefore within the range claimed (see explanation above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 26, 2025, with respect to Claims 1-2, 9-10 and 12-16, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Tsukada, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims further limiting the structure of the insulating layer and the other layer between the insulation layer and the surface of the core particle. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Tsukada in view of Hirose, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments directed to Yoshidome are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshidome (previously cited, US 20190279802 A1): teaches a two-layer coating structure comprising a first inner layer of Fe-based oxide and a second outer layer Si-based oxide (para. [0050]; para. [0065]), wherein the first inner layer of Fe-based oxide is between a Fe-based core particle and the second outer layer, and comprises a thickness of preferably less than 20nm and a dense structure, which allows for the reduction of dielectric breakdown and for enhanced withstand voltage (para. [0062]-[0063]).
Yoshidome further teaches wherein the inner layer advantageously prevents migration of Fe from the soft magnetic particle into the second outer layer Si-based oxide, such that the two-layer structure allows for both high insulation property and good withstand voltage, while improving the resistivity of a dust core manufactured from the soft magnetic metal powder (para. [0071]; para. [0109]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a Fe-based inner layer of 20nm or less between the iron particle core and SiO2-based insulation layer of Tsukada, as taught by Yoshidome, in order to provide a dense coating structure allowing for the reduction of dielectric breakdown and for enhanced withstand voltage, and in order to improve insulation property and resistivity of a dust core by preventing Fe migration from the iron core to the SiO2-based insulation layer (see teachings above).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on (571)-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735